01-22-2026, 09:19 PM
I entered his DM to me into chatGPT, going to put the full response into a spoiler but GPT agrees there is a strong chance this is a Russian speaker AND that this was most likely written in Russian and directly translated (think Google translate) rather than written in English by someone with ESL skills
1. Strong Indicators of Non-Native (L2) English
There are many consistent features that strongly suggest English is not the writer’s first language.
A. Article misuse or absence (very strong Slavic marker)
Russian has no articles (“a,” “the”), and this text shows classic transfer:
“The America on protestantism”
“The bullying in conspiracy”
“Appear the malignity”
“In pure human flesh my Word of Poetry”
These are semantic English words arranged without article logic — very typical of Russian-to-English writing.
B. Unstable verb tense & aspect
Russian tense/aspect works very differently from English. Examples:
“They have the sow old, fat, big”
“Sleep dream abow this cows”
“How do good Jesus with the pigs”
“Titanic as Hades unworthy eating and eating”
These are not random errors — they reflect direct translation of Russian participial or aspectual constructions into English without grammatical adjustment.
C. Word order reflects Slavic syntax
Russian allows flexible word order for emphasis. English does not.
Examples:
“In pure human flesh my Word of Poetry”
“The America on protestantism and worse”
“Appear the malignity”
This inverted, almost biblical syntax is not how native English religious polemic is written — but is common in Russian theological or prophetic rhetoric translated literally.
2. Lexical Choices Suggest Direct Translation
Many phrases look like calques (literal translations of idioms):
“throw your pearls before swines”
→ Russian proverb uses plural “swine” differently than modern English.
“free masonic orbit”
“self-election”
“deep things of satan”
“hungering nether”
“lexical gore”
These are semantically intelligible but unnatural in English, suggesting dictionary-based composition rather than fluent idiom.
3. Register Mixing: Religious + Political + Personal Attack
This text rapidly shifts between:
Biblical quotation (ESV, copied verbatim)
Prophetic denunciation
Conspiracy rhetoric
Direct insult toward forum members
Self-assertion as moral authority
This is important:
The quoted sections are fluent because they are copied.
The original sections are chaotic.
That contrast strongly indicates limited productive English ability, not limited reading ability — another L2 hallmark.
4. Emotional & Psychological Markers (Language-Based, Not Diagnostic)
Linguistically, the message shows:
Escalatory imagery (pigs, dogs, filth, Hades, stoning)
Apocalyptic framing
Binary moral division (“pure” vs “unclean”)
Second-person accusation (“Which you mistake for your great poetry”)
However, the disorganization is linguistic, not incoherent. There is an internal logic — just poorly expressed.
This points more to:
High emotional arousal
Moral outrage
Rhetorical overreach
than to psychosis or random thought disorder.
5. Cultural & Ideological Signals
Several elements strongly align with post-Soviet religious–political discourse, especially Orthodox or anti-Western rhetoric:
Anti-Protestant framing
Anti-Masonic fixation
“False freedom” rhetoric
America as moral Babylon
Jezebel as symbolic West
Esotericism = corruption
Nazism mentioned alongside America (common in Russian polemic)
This combination is far more common in Russian-language religious nationalism than in Anglophone evangelical spaces.
6. Why the Message Feels “Erratic” to Native English Readers
To a native English reader, this feels unhinged because:
English normally signals argument structure with transitions — this does not
English polemic usually limits metaphor — this stacks metaphors aggressively
English insults are usually direct — this uses symbolic condemnation instead
English religious writing avoids mixing quotation with insult — this does not
But in Russian polemical tradition, this style is not unusual, especially online.
7. Summary Assessment
Based on linguistic evidence alone:
✔ Very likely non-native English
✔ High probability of Russian or Slavic L1
✔ Heavy reliance on direct translation
✔ Emotionally charged but internally consistent
✔ Anger expressed through symbolic condemnation, not direct threat
✘ No evidence of sophisticated English rhetorical control
In short:
This reads like a religiously outraged L2 writer using English as a blunt instrument, not a native troll, and not someone carefully crafting an English literary attack.
There are many consistent features that strongly suggest English is not the writer’s first language.
A. Article misuse or absence (very strong Slavic marker)
Russian has no articles (“a,” “the”), and this text shows classic transfer:
“The America on protestantism”
“The bullying in conspiracy”
“Appear the malignity”
“In pure human flesh my Word of Poetry”
These are semantic English words arranged without article logic — very typical of Russian-to-English writing.
B. Unstable verb tense & aspect
Russian tense/aspect works very differently from English. Examples:
“They have the sow old, fat, big”
“Sleep dream abow this cows”
“How do good Jesus with the pigs”
“Titanic as Hades unworthy eating and eating”
These are not random errors — they reflect direct translation of Russian participial or aspectual constructions into English without grammatical adjustment.
C. Word order reflects Slavic syntax
Russian allows flexible word order for emphasis. English does not.
Examples:
“In pure human flesh my Word of Poetry”
“The America on protestantism and worse”
“Appear the malignity”
This inverted, almost biblical syntax is not how native English religious polemic is written — but is common in Russian theological or prophetic rhetoric translated literally.
2. Lexical Choices Suggest Direct Translation
Many phrases look like calques (literal translations of idioms):
“throw your pearls before swines”
→ Russian proverb uses plural “swine” differently than modern English.
“free masonic orbit”
“self-election”
“deep things of satan”
“hungering nether”
“lexical gore”
These are semantically intelligible but unnatural in English, suggesting dictionary-based composition rather than fluent idiom.
3. Register Mixing: Religious + Political + Personal Attack
This text rapidly shifts between:
Biblical quotation (ESV, copied verbatim)
Prophetic denunciation
Conspiracy rhetoric
Direct insult toward forum members
Self-assertion as moral authority
This is important:
The quoted sections are fluent because they are copied.
The original sections are chaotic.
That contrast strongly indicates limited productive English ability, not limited reading ability — another L2 hallmark.
4. Emotional & Psychological Markers (Language-Based, Not Diagnostic)
Linguistically, the message shows:
Escalatory imagery (pigs, dogs, filth, Hades, stoning)
Apocalyptic framing
Binary moral division (“pure” vs “unclean”)
Second-person accusation (“Which you mistake for your great poetry”)
However, the disorganization is linguistic, not incoherent. There is an internal logic — just poorly expressed.
This points more to:
High emotional arousal
Moral outrage
Rhetorical overreach
than to psychosis or random thought disorder.
5. Cultural & Ideological Signals
Several elements strongly align with post-Soviet religious–political discourse, especially Orthodox or anti-Western rhetoric:
Anti-Protestant framing
Anti-Masonic fixation
“False freedom” rhetoric
America as moral Babylon
Jezebel as symbolic West
Esotericism = corruption
Nazism mentioned alongside America (common in Russian polemic)
This combination is far more common in Russian-language religious nationalism than in Anglophone evangelical spaces.
6. Why the Message Feels “Erratic” to Native English Readers
To a native English reader, this feels unhinged because:
English normally signals argument structure with transitions — this does not
English polemic usually limits metaphor — this stacks metaphors aggressively
English insults are usually direct — this uses symbolic condemnation instead
English religious writing avoids mixing quotation with insult — this does not
But in Russian polemical tradition, this style is not unusual, especially online.
7. Summary Assessment
Based on linguistic evidence alone:
✔ Very likely non-native English
✔ High probability of Russian or Slavic L1
✔ Heavy reliance on direct translation
✔ Emotionally charged but internally consistent
✔ Anger expressed through symbolic condemnation, not direct threat
✘ No evidence of sophisticated English rhetorical control
In short:
This reads like a religiously outraged L2 writer using English as a blunt instrument, not a native troll, and not someone carefully crafting an English literary attack.